For years, obesity has become one of the most prominent health problems ever in the United States. Since 1980, the adult obesity rates have doubled from 15 percent to 30 percent as well as the childhood obesity rates that have nearly tripled from 6.5 percent to 16.3 percent. In addition to the negative impact on their social status, this epidemic has and still is taking a toll on the U.S. economy by adding billions of additional dollars in health care costs; which hurts our country’s ability to compete in the global economy.
Oblivious to the nation, children are our future and it depends on the present to take a position and follow through with a responsible, legitimate, and favorable way to help solve this crisis. If more and more children have continuous habits that keep them obese, then they would continue to hurt the economy as adults. Specifically speaking, “Over the past three decades, obesity rates have nearly tripled for children ages 2 to 5 (from 5 percent to 14 percent), more than tripled for youth ages 12 to 19 (from 5 percent to 17 percent), and more than quadrupled for children ages 6 to 11 (from 4 percent to 19 percent).” An estimate of 12 million children and adolescents are obese, and about 30 percent don’t regularly exercise three or more days per week. Being obese puts children and teenagers at a risk in developing type 2 diabetes, some risk factors for early-on heart disease, and other problems such as sleep apnea, asthma, and even psychological effects. Some cancer, stroke, diabetes, and heart disease are, by adulthood, obesity-associated chronic diseases that are the most leading causes of death in the U.S.
Obesity policies haven’t been working as efficiently as it should, and the policies that are out and about aren’t swift enough to meet the present needs of the economy. The 1994 National Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) worked at requiring manufacturers to include nutrition information panel with and on the labels of almost all products. This rule applied to all except what they call food-away-from-home (FAFH); generally known as the foods we purchase at restaurants. It makes it more difficult to know exactly how many calories, amounts of fat, salt, and sugar that is consumed when eating away from home; causing the consumer to misjudge the nutrient content of the meals. Despite that lack of knowledge to the general public consumers, “ERS study showed that FAFH typically contained more of the nutrients over consumed (fat and saturated fat) and less of the nutrients under consumed (calcium, fiber, and iron.)” Children are cared for and fed by their parents. So if parents don’t exactly know what they’re feeding to their children when consistently eating out, then how would the children know? Most of these policies have impacted very little and do hope for more, but it would be something that it’s true intent would accumulate over a couple of decades; after obesity rates have already sky-rocketed the population to 80%.
The NLEA began to raise the question on whether the proving of nutrition labels were effective, but many studies varying from restaurants to universities showed, in a laboratory setting, that it had no impact on the subjects’ energy and fat intakes. It didn’t make any difference in averting the food from its consumer. If the NLEA were to improve chances of lowered rates at all, they could begin by creating a mandatory label on the FAFH industry with the desire that they would “react by improving the nutrition quality of foods sold at restaurants.”In reality, if the consumers do not favor in these reformulations, then restaurants would abandon the healthy move and create recipes accordingly to “the taste and texture that consumers prefer.” The outcome to this day is still unsure.
Another proposal made to reduce obesity in the US is taxation on snack foods that are high in salt, added sugar, and calories. With the substitution of healthier foods to snack on, weight is likely to fall, and health would improve. Beneficially, that revenue on snack foods has, in some variations, used that money to fund expanded nutrition education programs. Selective taxation of certain foods is said to be rare for the Federal Government, because this was once wasn’t a national issue to begin with; sodas and margarine are some examples of a federally taxed food.
Some health policy activists and health researchers put out the recommendation to place restrictions on food advertisements. Children are the main targets of ads such as candy, soft drinks, fast foods, and sugared cereal; some proposed to abolish these child-targeting ads. “The effectiveness of a policy curtailing food advertising to children depends on the extent to which food ads alter children’s preferences for different food groups or simply shift them from one hamburger chain (and one toy) to another.” If advertising is possible to child-rear children into forming their food tastes and preferences, then health benefits would be successfully acquired from minimizing children’s exposure to advertising.
In general, people believe that being overweight or obese are a consequence to the outcome of personal choices; what and how much we eat and whether and how much we exercise. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) have gathered up enough data to come up with a “National Strategy to Combat Obesity that will involve individuals and families, communities, schools, employers, businesses, insurers, and government to find ways to address the epidemic.” The goal was to reverse the trend of childhood obesity by the year 2015. Set nutritional standards in schools are stricter than the existing USDA requirement in only 18 states. Taxes on foods and soft drinks that are of low nutritional value are applied in 17 states. “Twenty-six states explicitly cover nutritional assessment and consultation for obese adults under Medicaid, while 20 explicitly do not. The House and Senate even overrode former President Bush’s veto to pass into law the Food Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; allowing the farms and nutrition programs to be reauthorized for another 5 years. $10.36 billion was including over the spending levels for nutrition programs.
The obesity policies set in the past, present and future still have yet to find a good amount of eclectic solutions to weigh down the weight of obese impacts.
For years, obesity has become one of the most prominent health problems ever in the United States. Since 1980, the adult obesity rates have doubled from 15 percent to 30 percent as well as the childhood obesity rates that have nearly tripled from 6.5 percent to 16.3 percent. In addition to the negative impact on their social status, this epidemic has and still is taking a toll on the U.S. economy by adding billions of additional dollars in health care costs; which hurts our country’s ability to compete in the global economy.
Oblivious to the nation, children are our future and it depends on the present to take a position and follow through with a responsible, legitimate, and favorable way to help solve this crisis. If more and more children have continuous habits that keep them obese, then they would continue to hurt the economy as adults. Specifically speaking, “Over the past three decades, obesity rates have nearly tripled for children ages 2 to 5 (from 5 percent to 14 percent), more than tripled for youth ages 12 to 19 (from 5 percent to 17 percent), and more than quadrupled for children ages 6 to 11 (from 4 percent to 19 percent).” An estimate of 12 million children and adolescents are obese, and about 30 percent don’t regularly exercise three or more days per week. Being obese puts children and teenagers at a risk in developing type 2 diabetes, some risk factors for early-on heart disease, and other problems such as sleep apnea, asthma, and even psychological effects. Some cancer, stroke, diabetes, and heart disease are, by adulthood, obesity-associated chronic diseases that are the most leading causes of death in the U.S.
Obesity policies haven’t been working as efficiently as it should, and the policies that are out and about aren’t swift enough to meet the present needs of the economy. The 1994 National Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) worked at requiring manufacturers to include nutrition information panel with and on the labels of almost all products. This rule applied to all except what they call food-away-from-home (FAFH); generally known as the foods we purchase at restaurants. It makes it more difficult to know exactly how many calories, amounts of fat, salt, and sugar that is consumed when eating away from home; causing the consumer to misjudge the nutrient content of the meals. Despite that lack of knowledge to the general public consumers, “ERS study showed that FAFH typically contained more of the nutrients over consumed (fat and saturated fat) and less of the nutrients under consumed (calcium, fiber, and iron.)” Children are cared for and fed by their parents. So if parents don’t exactly know what they’re feeding to their children when consistently eating out, then how would the children know? Most of these policies have impacted very little and do hope for more, but it would be something that it’s true intent would accumulate over a couple of decades; after obesity rates have already sky-rocketed the population to 80%.
The NLEA began to raise the question on whether the proving of nutrition labels were effective, but many studies varying from restaurants to universities showed, in a laboratory setting, that it had no impact on the subjects’ energy and fat intakes. It didn’t make any difference in averting the food from its consumer. If the NLEA were to improve chances of lowered rates at all, they could begin by creating a mandatory label on the FAFH industry with the desire that they would “react by improving the nutrition quality of foods sold at restaurants.” In reality, if the consumers do not favor in these reformulations, then restaurants would abandon the healthy move and create recipes accordingly to “the taste and texture that consumers prefer.” The outcome to this day is still unsure.
Another proposal made to reduce obesity in the US is taxation on snack foods that are high in salt, added sugar, and calories. With the substitution of healthier foods to snack on, weight is likely to fall, and health would improve. Beneficially, that revenue on snack foods has, in some variations, used that money to fund expanded nutrition education programs. Selective taxation of certain foods is said to be rare for the Federal Government, because this was once wasn’t a national issue to begin with; sodas and margarine are some examples of a federally taxed food.
Some health policy activists and health researchers put out the recommendation to place restrictions on food advertisements. Children are the main targets of ads such as candy, soft drinks, fast foods, and sugared cereal; some proposed to abolish these child-targeting ads. “The effectiveness of a policy curtailing food advertising to children depends on the extent to which food ads alter children’s preferences for different food groups or simply shift them from one hamburger chain (and one toy) to another.” If advertising is possible to child-rear children into forming their food tastes and preferences, then health benefits would be successfully acquired from minimizing children’s exposure to advertising.
In general, people believe that being overweight or obese are a consequence to the outcome of personal choices; what and how much we eat and whether and how much we exercise. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) have gathered up enough data to come up with a “National Strategy to Combat Obesity that will involve individuals and families, communities, schools, employers, businesses, insurers, and government to find ways to address the epidemic.” The goal was to reverse the trend of childhood obesity by the year 2015. Set nutritional standards in schools are stricter than the existing USDA requirement in only 18 states. Taxes on foods and soft drinks that are of low nutritional value are applied in 17 states. “Twenty-six states explicitly cover nutritional assessment and consultation for obese adults under Medicaid, while 20 explicitly do not. The House and Senate even overrode former President Bush’s veto to pass into law the Food Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; allowing the farms and nutrition programs to be reauthorized for another 5 years. $10.36 billion was including over the spending levels for nutrition programs.
The obesity policies set in the past, present and future still have yet to find a good amount of eclectic solutions to weigh down the weight of obese impacts.
Sources: